Outcome: Dismissed
AUG032020_01B2203
Our summary
Self-petitioner chief operating officer seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met three evidentiary criteria: judging, scholarly articles, and leading critical role. AAO dismissed appeal, finding insufficient sustained national or international acclaim and recognition to demonstrate extraordinary ability at top-tier level.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Director found petitioner satisfied judging criterion; AAO agreed with this determination.
- Leading or critical role · Petitioner served in leading role as chief operating officer of organization with distinguished reputation.
- Scholarly articles · Director found petitioner satisfied scholarly articles criterion; AAO agreed with this determination.
What was missing
- Final merits · Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; graduate research not implemented or recognized at top-tier level.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Met | Director found petitioner satisfied judging criterion; AAO agreed with this determination. | |
| Met | Petitioner served in leading role as chief operating officer of organization with distinguished reputation. | |
| Met | Director found petitioner satisfied scholarly articles criterion; AAO agreed with this determination. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as independent criterion; evidence considered only in final merits determination. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as independent criterion; decision states no need to address since three criteria met. | |
| Claimed, not analyzed | Claimed but not analyzed as independent criterion; decision states no need to address since three criteria met. | |
| Not met | Insufficient evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; graduate research not implemented or recognized at top-tier level. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.
